IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONECOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.ALTERNATIVE MEDICINALCANNABIS COLLECTIVE et al.,Defendants and Appellants.B233419(Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct. No. BC457089)APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ann I.Jones, Judge. Reversed with directions.Law Offices of J. David Nick and J. David Nick for Defendants and Appellants.John F. Krattli, Acting County Counsel, Lawrence L. Hafetz, Acting AssistantCounty Counsel, and Sari J. Steel, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff andRespondent._________________________________

medical marijuana “dispensary” in any unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles

(County). Defendants contend that the order granting the injunction should be reversed

because the County‟s blank

et ban on medical marijuana dispensaries conflicts with, and ispreempted by, the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) enacted by the voters in1996 authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and the Medical MarijuanaProgram enacted by the L

marijuana to any person, are prohibited in all zones in the County.” Subdivision

A.1plainly states the purpose of the ordina

nce is to “ban medical marijuana dispensaries in allzones in the County.”

The ordinance provides that the ban shall remain in effect unless

and until the Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court deems it to be “unlawful,”

in which event the provisions of the former ordinance, which required a conditional usepermit and business license and imposed location restrictions and operating requirements(set forth in subdivisions D through H), will again take effect.

3In March of 2011, County, which had pr

eviously sought to enjoin defendants‟

operation for failure to comply with the provisions of the prior version of LACC section22.56.196, as we set forth in

Hill

,

supra

, 192 Cal.App.4th at page 865, filed a newnuisance action against defendants on the basis of the newly enacted ban on medicalmarijuana dispensaries. The first cause of action sought injunctive relief. It alleged,

“The

Defendants, and each of them, have violated Los Angeles County Code Section22.56.196 B., Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, by operating or permitting the operationof [a medical marijuana dispensary] on the Subject Property when such use is banned inall zones in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. In so acting, theDefendants, and each of them, have been using the Subject Property in a manner that is

not permitted by the Los Angeles County Code.” County also alleged, on informationand belief, that defendants “have been operating [a medical marijuana dispensary] which

is not in compliance with state law. Defendant[s] are not a collective or cooperative orany other business entity that falls within the protections afforded to [

sic

] by the [MedicalMarijuana Program] and, therefore, cannot defend their operation on that basisnotwithstanding their violations of th

e County Code.” The second cause of action soughtdeclaratory relief and alleged that defendants “established and are operating [a medical

marijuana dispensary] on the Subject Property in violation of the Los Angeles County

zoning code.”

County moved for a preliminary injunction, which defendants opposed. After ahearing, the trial court granted the motion and enjoined defendants and anyone acting on

their behalf “from operating or permitting to operate a medical marijuana dispensary

and/or possessing, offering, selling, giving away or otherwise dispensing marijuana on orfrom the subject property at 20050 E. Arrow Highway, in the unincorporated communityof Covina, California, and from any other location within the unincorporated area of theCounty of Lo

s Angeles, pending trial of this action or further order of this court.” Thetrial court‟s written ruling on the motion concluded that County‟s ban on all medical

marijuana dispensaries was consistent with, and thus not preempted by, state law. The